tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1912669500934497251.post3843763324660261578..comments2023-09-29T03:39:03.460-04:00Comments on Gratuitous Violins: Reading the Iowa decisionEstherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16076517542540421210noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1912669500934497251.post-59946182243434342832009-04-06T09:17:00.000-04:002009-04-06T09:17:00.000-04:00Hi Chairm,Thanks for the comment. Well, I'm not a ...Hi Chairm,<BR/>Thanks for the comment. Well, I'm not a lawyer and it probably would be better for you to just read the opinion yourself. But from what I've read, the justices seem to explain that pretty well. <BR/><BR/>Here are some pertinent sections:<BR/><BR/>If you look at pages 8-9 of the opinion, it says that the Iowa Legislature amended the state's marriage statute to define marriage only as a union between a man and a woman. <BR/><BR/>Six same-sex couples asked a county recorder to issue marriage licenses to them, and the recorder refused, following the state law. Except for the statutory restriction defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, the couples met all of the other requirements to marry in Iowa.<BR/><BR/>In their lawsuit, they claimed that the state's action unconstitutionally discriminated against them on several bases, "including sexual orientation."<BR/><BR/>If you look at pages 30-31, the opinion says that the statute doesn't expressly forbid gay and lesbian Iowans from marrying, but it does require that if they do marry, it be to someone of the opposite sex. The court says that considering the complete context of marriage, including intimacy, that's clearly unappealing and "no right at all."<BR/><BR/>The only way a gay or lesbian person can gain the same rights under the statute as a heterosexual person is by negating the very trait that defines them as a class - "their sexual orientation."<BR/><BR/>"The benefit denied by the marriage statute — the status of civil marriage for same-sex couples—is so “closely correlated with being homosexual” as to make it apparent the law is targeted at gay and lesbian people as a class."<BR/><BR/>By placing civil marriage outside the realistic reach of gays and lesbians, the ban on same-sex marriage "differentiates implicitly on the basis of sexual orientation."<BR/><BR/>If you read through the county's arguments, which the court discusses starting on page 51, they're all about why same-sex couples (gays and lesbians) should not be allowed to marry. <BR/><BR/>So it seems pretty clear to my non-legal eyes. The law clearly targeted a class of people based on their sexual orientation.Estherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16076517542540421210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1912669500934497251.post-64367907992003656622009-04-06T01:37:00.000-04:002009-04-06T01:37:00.000-04:00The marriage statute does not have a sexual orient...The marriage statute does not have a sexual orientation requirement.<BR/><BR/>Why did the Court emphasize sexual orientation?Chairmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10485251953071927097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1912669500934497251.post-53853604108024633992009-04-05T22:59:00.000-04:002009-04-05T22:59:00.000-04:00Wow, Amanda, you have the world's record for comme...Wow, Amanda, you have the world's record for commenting on my blog posts! Thanks! <BR/><BR/>It's just such a methodical, forceful opinion, calmly and rationally debunking all of the appeals to fear and prejudice. It cuts to the core issue: equal protection under the law.Estherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16076517542540421210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1912669500934497251.post-52405478456165434642009-04-05T22:49:00.000-04:002009-04-05T22:49:00.000-04:00All I can say, again and again, is I'm so thankful...All I can say, again and again, is I'm so thankful for Iowa!Amandahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07026099426503180472noreply@blogger.com